About this Show

All In With Chris Hayes

News/Business. (2013)




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel v787






Us 7, Angie 7, Washington 5, Fbi 4, Angelina Jolie 4, Irs 4, Florida 4, New York 4, Jay Carney 3, James Cole 3, Obama 3, Cincinnati 3, The Irs 2, Jolie 2, Karl Rove 2, Obama Administration 2, The Ap 2, Eric 2, Underarm 2, Guatemala 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  MSNBC    All In With Chris Hayes    News/Business.  (2013)  

    May 15, 2013
    12:00 - 1:01am PDT  

money will never be this less expensive. there will never be a better time to put money where it's needed and it will give the president, you, sir, something to do and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. all in with chris hayes starts right now. good evening from new york. president obama said the irs should be prepared for a full investigation after targeting conservative groups. tonight, we have the results of the investigation and it's a stunning look at an organization and bureaucracy completely overwhelmed in the aftermath of citizens united. plus, i'll tell you about angelina jolie's brave admission "the new york times" and the spotlight it shines on health
care and three, a revelation from newt gingrich that is as jaw dropping as the time he was leaving the polls, but lest you still not believe that today was a really large, massive, big, enormous news day, we begin with the rare and remarkable occurrence. simultaneous top level super newsy press conferences. this is during andrea mitchell's 1:00 p.m. show, sim ul casting the live white house briefing with jay carney and the press conference being held by eric holder. andrea did not have the sound up on both press con trenss at the same time, although that would have been awesome and kind of fun. here's what it would have been like. duelling press conferences. go. >> information obtained legally -- >> individuals -- submission. >> all right. that is fun. but also really important. see, the reason our network
carried both is because everyone was waiting for both the white house and justice department to answer questions on the blockbuster story that dropped last night. when the associated press revealed the justice department secretly obtained two entire months of telephone records including incoming and outgoing calls for both work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general ap office numbers in new york, washington and hartford connecticut and at the white house press gallery. in a letter to the justice department, the ap called it an intrusion -- with its constitutional rights. it was a new spying on reporter scandal in washington. some of the people appeared in
front of a tv camera exactly at the same time. almost enough to break cable news. in all the mash up jokes aside, jay carney and eric holder may well have been synced up when it came to answers because they said essentially the same thing. they both denied knowing anything about it. really. >> we are not involved at the white house in any decisions made in connection with ongoing criminal investigations. as those matters are handled appropriately by the justice department. >> i'm not familiar with all that went into the formulation of the subpoena. i was recused from that matter. >> i was thinking the same thing. at first blush, that sounds ridiculous. there's a scandal and they don't know anything about it?
i'm here to tell you it might be true and it were to understand how it might be that neither the president nor attorney general knowing anything about this big spy operation, you need to understand what got the big scandalous spy operation going and this is a very interesting story. because it started in may of last year with this scoop from the ap that the cia had foiled an al-qaeda suicide bomb plot being planned around the anniversary of osama bin laden's death, the plot being orchestrated by an affiliate in yemen that involved an upgrade of the underwear bomb in detroit on christmas day in 2009 and get this. that the fbi actually had the bomb in its possession, had managed to get its hands on the bomb and was examining it to see whether it could have passed
through airport security. the ap did not publish this when it first had the information because intelligence operation was still underway. so if he pulls the story and they do report on the plot only after they learn the white house itself planned to release the information in a public announcement. the ap's report was published one day ahead of the white house's planned announcement. now, while this all sounded like a good news kind of story, they managed to get the ball, right? the fact the ap got a hold ahead of time and the cia was saying the operation was not incomplete, that got capitol hill worried. lawmakers from both parties rushed to the microphones to demand investigation, criminal charges and prosecutions in what they are now calling a leaked case. >> i've ordered a preliminary review and this has been a damaging leak. we shouldn't underestimate what really happened here. >> the fbi has to do a complete
investigation because this is really criminal in the literal sense of the word to leak out this type of sensitive, classified information on really almost unparalleled penetration of the enemy. zwl the leak, i think, has to be prosecuted, so the investigation is being done, hopefully it can be concluded and criminal charges will go to the department of justice. >> so, it appears the justice department looks like they followed that, that call for investigation. investigate, they did. when eric holder said he'd rekuzed himself this morning, that is what he meant because as someone who actually knew the information that had been leaked, he knew about this plot that ended up in the ap. he, himself, was being investigated as a potential leaker. >> i had been interviewed by the fbi in connection with this matter and to avoid a potential appearance of a potential conflict of interest and to make sure the investigation was seen
as independent, this matter is therefore, there after been conducted by the u.s. attorney in washington, d.c. under the supervision of the deputy attorney general. the deputy attorney general would have been the one who had to ultimately authorize the subpoena that went to the ap. >> so, when eric holder said this morning he wasn't familiar with his own justice department's reasoning in secretly grabbing the personal and cell phone records of associated press reports, he meant he wasn't familiar by design because this guy, the deputy attorney general, james cole, is in charge of the leak investigation. mr. cole in fact responded to the scathing letter today shedding at least some light on his decision making progress, an investigation including other investigative steps over 550 interviews and reviewing tens of
thousands of documents before seeking the phone records. so, eric holder and 549 of his closest friends have been questioned all before the deputy attorney general took to secretly seizing reporter's phone records for two months. the justice department is one of those agencies from which we expegt a level of independence from the white house, right? we don't want to president deciding for instance who should and shouldn't be criminally indicted. that's a really important principle. our nation's biggest moments of abuse of presidential power have come when that separation was violated and it is possible that was the case here and if so, it is a massive and huge scandal. but that is not what it looks like at this early stage. right now, based on what we know, what we found out today, my big question is less what did the white house know and more what the heck was james cole thinking and is this legal? and is he really allowed to do this? joining me from washington,
michael isakoff and in san diego, marjorie cohen. michael, i want to begin with you. what do we know today that we didn't know last night in terms of the circumstances of this, in terms of who was doing this and how it came about? >> first of all, we know that attorney general holder did rekuz himself. we know that james cole oversaw this investigation. and we know that little snippet that you read from cole's letter to the ap, 550 interviews, tens of thousands of documents. what it suggests is they really don't know who the leaker is and not being able to find the leaker, they issued this dragnet
fishing expedition subpoena for the ap covering offices where over 100 journalists work. cell phones, home phone numbers of reporters. i could be wrong, but what it sounds like is an act of desperation. i just want to make this one point. what's distinltive about this subpoena, from other examples where they have gotten the phone records of reporters is just how brood it is. it's not narrowly focused as the guidelines say. it is not, it doesn't seem aimed at finding a specific leak from one report, from one source to one journalist. it's let's look at everything hoping we can find something. >> and jim cole says in his letter, oh, yes, don't worry. this went by the guidelines and
the ap wrote a response, bro, not true. check out what you told us about. i want you to talk me through the law at issue here starting with just this basic question. before we get to the -- subpoenaed phone records from the phone company, can the government just do that when they want to see the phone records of anyone? >> well, no. i mean, they have to have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and under the regulations, which go back to the watergate days and were passed in light of watergate, it's important, it's necessary to negotiate with the reporter, to pursue less drastic alternatives than actually a subpoena. the only time that a subpoena can be issued to subpoena the phone records of a journalist is when the attorney general thinks it might pose a substantial
threat to the investigation to negotiate and let the reporter know they're investigating, but the attorney general has to sign off on this. evidently, the attorney general recused himself, so now, the deputy attorney general has signed off on it, which may also violate the regulations. bottom line is do we trust them? but the extreme secrecy of the obama administration that we've seen violations of civil liberties, which leads to these whistleblowers and leaks to inform the public about what's happening, do we trust them to actually follow this loophole in the regular lace that says that there's a substantial threat and could be a substantial threat -- >> let me translate that slowly. what we're seeing is the department of justice says look, there's a kind of heightened status of first amendment operations for the press, right? you don't want to go around
subpoenaing reporter's records. that poses some problems. i can't do my constitutional duty if every source i talk to is worrieded that the fbi is listened on the other line or getting their phone number and calling them. you've got to go through x, y and z steps. you've got to go to the press outlet and say, hey, can we negotiate a way for us to look at some stuff? they never did that because there's a loophole as you just called it, in the regulation saying if it will threaten the investigation, then you don't have to do that. i thought it was so interesting today that even though holder was distancing himself from this, he basically defended the decision that his deputy made. take a listen to what he says about this leak and the leak investigation. >> this was a very serious leak. and a very, very serious leak.
i've been a prosecutor since 1976 and i'd have to say it is not top two -- three serious leaks i've seen. and trying to determine who is responsible for that, i think required very aggressive action. >> what's your response? they say this was a really big deal and this is what we had to do. >> everything is a big deal to the obama administration when it comes to leaks and whistleblowers. this administration has indicted more so-called in these leak investigations, more people than all prior administrations combined. we have bradley manning, who revealed war crimes. julian assange, who's been
investigated. they would like to indict him. we have an ex-cia official serving 30 months now for giving information about the bush torture policy and when holder decided to investigate this leak about the yemen incident in june, he also evidently, reportedly, opened investigations on two other matters, first of all, when mclatchy revealed that the administration's claims that it was only targeting with the drone attacks on the basically assassinating high level leaders that posed imminent threats, that that was false. he revealed that was false and lots of low level people had been targeted as well and also, apparently, these investigating during this same time period david sanger's report "the new york times" -- >> there has been -- >> cyber attacks on the -- >> there have been a wide array -- of these investigations. michael, is there political traction for this? it's interesting to me as we
look at these scandals rotating around, this seems to have less political traction, calling for the head of whoever's at the leak in the fist place. >> right, but that hasn't scholarshiped republicans today from saying they're concerned about what the justice department has done. holder is scheduled to talk more. i spoke with chairman goodlet this afternoon and says he has some, a lot of questions for the attorney general. he was very concerned about the broad breadth of this subpoena. the former attorney general under president bush said he had real concerns about this, there's inevitably going to be politics, but the timing of this for the obama administration was not good. >> it may get buried because washington has a real instinct for the trivial.
thank you so much. >> thank you. >> we now have a full report from the treasury inspector general. i'll have the details, next. happen any time, to anyone! [ female announcer ] stress sweat is different than ordinary sweat. it smells worse. get 4x the protection against stress sweat. introducing new secret clinical strength stress response scent.
an update on a story we've been following. the closing of the -- schools in michigan. last night, we told you about the plan to start a voluntary skills enhancement camp instead of reopening school. the source close to the controversy said the state can't backtrack fast enough on this day camp idea. now, they are working to get the schools open asap. apparently for the remainder of the year. they took a boating in the press yesterday and now realize the whole camp idea is a pr nightmare. yes, yes, it is, michigan. we will continue to follow the story on the show and on our website.
he had no tolerance for targeting of specific group, conservative groups, if the reporting is true on this. >> if these activities are taking place, but an acknowledgment on the part of irs leadership, these things did indeed occur, so i wonder why the president used that phrasing. >> what we have to do, responsively, is wait for the independent inspector general's report to be released before we assess next steps. >> that was jay carney who took
a grilling from the press this afternoon talking about how the president was waiting for the much talked about and anticipated treasury inspector general's report to come out before the inspector general decided what to do next. that's recording the malfeasance that the staff improperly targeted conservative groups applying for tax exempt status. tonight, that report is out. it blames quote ineffective management for the internal revenue u service's political targets of conservative groups. it also states the irs started using inappropriate criteria to review indications of significant political campaign intervention. the report is also a fascinating document that lays out how the irs in the wake of the citizen's united decision, has been put in the position of trying to decide who is and who is not a primarily political actor. and how the agency is left flailing to decide in a given organization qualifies.
joining me tonight, political reporter for the "new york times" who has done some of the best reporting on dark money in politics. has a fantastic piece in the times today about the context of this, but first, all right, you and i both read this report. a long series of tweets, and it is, i mean, saying like, oh, my god, this treasury, irs inspector general report is interesting sounds ridiculous. >> it is fascinating if you've been watching from the outside, then you have 54 pages of here's how it worked, what happened. it's like peering into the recesses of the most secret of agency. >> i want to just set the table for folks. the table is -- citizens united says corporations can spend out of political advertising in a campaign season. corporations aren't just exxon
mobil and so, there are a bunch of people that incorporate as 501 c4s, social welfare organizations, but are going to be getting a lot of adds in and don't have to disclose their donors. the question is, well, these things that say they're 501c4s, the irs has to stay what is the standard, what do you learn about what the irs is supposed to do when faced with this genuinely difficult question. these people say they're going to be a social welfare organization. which side of the line do they fall on? >> here's the main thing i learned from this. the people in cincinnati who are charged with looking at the applications and deciding if a c4 group is going to do permissible political activity, don't themselves understand the irs rules for what is permissible activity. now, it's not totally
surprising. >> literally it said in the w. >> the lawyers are in d.c. and the guys in cincinnati aren't totally sure what c4s are allowed to do. now, i'm not a lawyer and if i'm ever writing a story about this stuff, i call like ten lawyers just to make sure i'm not making a mistake and i still make a mistake. that appears to be what these guys did here. these guys processing these applications didn't really know what was okay and not okay, then they go and ask all these questions that are totally irrelevant to the processing of an application. who are your donors. give us a list of all the organizations you've worked with. >> your spouses. to a layperson, i guess it goes to what kind of political activity they're involved in, but it doesn't go to their job, which is are you doing the right thing to get tax ex -- this is a
passage from the report. we asked the acting -- director, executive and determinations unit personnel if the criteria, when they start saying tea party, patriot. if the criteria were influenced by any organization outside the u.s., all these officials stated the criteria were not influenced. that seems to say this is not something coming top down. this is not calls from the white house. this is something that is happening in this bureaucracy. >> we should probably say there are a couple more investigations to come. who knows what we'll find out. >> this is not definitive. according to this report, a couple of line employees in cincinnati decided you know what? this will be a great way to figure out if groups are doing permissible activity. let's sernl r for the ones that
have tea party in the name and even worse, when the head of the entire part of the irs exempts organizations, that's crazy, you can't change it, they went around behind her back and she didn't figure it out for a few months. finally, after something like two year, came up with a consistent set of standards that was more or less compatible with irs rules. >> and we should just put the context here. in 2010, there were about 1700 applications for this kind of status. by 2012, it jumped a thousand. it was up to 2774, so they are seeing a real rising tide of these applications as the election is coming in. finally, you wrote a great piece in the times, you said look, here's the craziest thing about this whole thing. these little groups that didn't have much money were getting really raked over the cole coals while the biggest groups, democratic strategists we all
knew were doing primary politics, not a thing happened. >> we should say we're not sure because an actual audit from the irs says this is not good can take six years. karl rove's organization was two and a half years old. it could be five more years until we know if the irs thinks they're there or whatever. or some local county group are getting jumped on here and they're these big groups that are in the fec records spending hundreds of millions of dollars on political campaign ads. the purest kind of intervention we can do. it's like we all know what karl rove is up to and they're doing -- >> thank you. come up, i'll tell you why everyone loves a scandal especially around this time of year. stay with us.
breaking news in the benghazi stand. never mind everything we've been saying for four days. no, seriously. remember the big white house talking point e-mail revelations that had the media in full on benghazi frenzy? >> the administration on the defensive after abc news obtained e-mails showinging
extensive edits to the talking points issued after the attack. >> jonathan carl obtained 12 different edits to talking points that were the basis for the administration's misleading message after four americans were killed by muslim terroristed. >> we have the documents, the e-mails, this is clear and we know now that it was a document completely ran through by the white house and state department reflecting all their objections and the bottom line is in the end, they redacted the truth. >> that fire sound was about a set of e-mails about talking points that were shown to congressional stafferers, okay? just want to make sure we're clear on this. those staffers took notes, paraphrased them and diskuzed them with a reporter. today, we have one of the e-mails.
here's what he wrote. there is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from congress and people who are not particularly informed. in so far as we have firmed up assessments that don't compromise intel and the investigation and need to have the capability to correct the record -- misimpression. we can take this up tomorrow at deputies, a meeting of deputies. the story on friday was that the white house was nefariously figuring out how to dupe the public. this e-mail shows the white house saying hey, it's really hard to know what's going on right now. there's a lot of misinformation being spread and a lot of different agencies have a stake in what is being spread. now, you might ask yourself, in fact, i am asking myself why am i talking about an e-mail about a talking point? no, seriously, tell me. why am i on national television talking about this? because believe me, i don't want to be.
i really don't want to be. and here is the answer. this chart posted by nate silver shows google searches for political new us around the low end of where they've been over the last nine years. i've talked to bloggers an the increde bable drop off and even heard cable news is experiencing something similar. pli scientist writes -- also found that media scandals are less likely to emerge as pressure from other news stories increases. in other words, when there's a lot going on in the news politically, scandals are unlikely, when there's not a lot of political news, well, you get the point. he adds obama is in his second term, which is when scandals are most likely to take place, so there you have it. republicans don't like the president. there's an empty news cycle. the president is in his second term.
it is predetermined that reporting on an overblown scandal is what the media are going to be doing. these conditions don't excuse what the irs has done to tea party groups. these don't excuse the overreach. both of those stories should get the media's full attention and scrutiny. yet, now that we are dealing with an empty news story -- when there is actual news out there. you want scandalous? this is my nominee. the ruler of guatemala in the early 1980s. on friday, he was found guilty of genocide. he oversaw the slaughter of nearly 2,000 indigenous people. guatemalan court ordered the -- to apologize. of course, no one pays attention to the story of a dictator in a
place like guatemala unless, oh, i don't know -- >> i know that president rios is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. i know he wants to improve the quality of life for all guatemalans and to promote social justice. my administration will do all it can to support his progressive efforts. >> he's talking about a guy that tried to extinguish an indigenous people. fox, you want to take it from here? we'll be right back for click three.
angie's list is essential. i automatically go there. at angie's list, you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare written by people just like you. if you want to save yourself time and avoid a hassle, go to angie's list. at angie's list, you'll find the right person to do the job you need. and you'll find the right person quickly and easily. i'm busy, busy, busy, busy. thank goodness for angie's list. from roofers to plumbers to dentists and more, angie's list -- reviews you can trust. oh, angie? i have her on speed dial. angelina jolie is being applauded for the admission she made today in a "new york times" op-ed. what she wrote about raises a lot of questions about women's health. first, i want to share the internet today beginning with newt gingrich's puzzle. >> we're really puzzled. here at gingrich productions, we
spent weeks trying to figure out what do you call this. it's taking pictures, it's not a cell phone. if you can get wikipedia, that's not a cell phone. think about it. this device is something new and different. i've been calling it a hand held computer. >> no, this is not some clever joke. the man who ran for the nation's highest office, the man who said he would challenge president obama to seven lincoln douglas style debates can't figure out what to call this device because it does so many other things. >> now, we've been here before. when we first developed it, it was called the horse less carriage and took a little while to get a new word for it. >> yes, newt, we've figured out a new word for it. the automobile. just as we have for years now called those things smart phones. for the man who seemed so tech savvy as speaker, is acknowledging smart phone in his nearly three minute por ten
spiel. >> please leave a comment. what would you call this so that we could explain to people -- >> please stop it. you're killing me. also, you can use it to take pictures of your feet, fyi. twitter fan florida d.o.t. shortens yellow light time and doubles revenues for red light ticks. appears to be a standard local news package from tampa bay, florida. >> you won't believe what we found. proof of intentionally shortening the length of yellow lights. and that of course creates more tickets. >> state agency allowed localities to shorten the yellow light, pumping up revenue by $50 million last year. >> i never thought of such a thing. that i was doing anything wrong. >> from there, it evolved into a great seven-minute investigative
piece explaining how yellow light times are normally calculated to the revenues and why efforts to tighten yellow light times might be failing because of that perpetual pot of gold, the lobbyists. >> ten news found they've donated more than half a million dollars to political campaigns in florida alone and upwards of a million dollars lobbying. >> check out the whole piece and drive slowly while you're in florida. and the third awesomest thing, computers may not kill us, but they'll take our jobs. the rate at which computers have been gaining on the human brain has been expo nen. they will increasedly take our jobs, robots will outnumber human beings sometime in 2030s. worker displacement could be worse than before. all hope is not lost. we must be adequately prepared
if this guy comes around. you can find links. we'll be right back. my mantra? always go the extra mile. to treat my low testosterone, i did my research. my doctor and i went with axiron, the only underarm low t treatment. axiron can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied
as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about the only underarm low t treatment, axiron.
today, we saw an amazing and courageous and just really gracefully written op-ed "the new york times" by angelina jolie. under the title my medical choice. jolie explains her decision
earlier this year to undergo a preventive double mastectomy, having both of her breasts removed to minimize her risk of getting breast cancer. it came after she underwent testinging to discover she had the brca1 gene. jolie's mother dieded after a long battle with ovarian cancer at just the age of 56 and jolie writes about her children asking whether the decide that killed hir grandmother could affect her. i've always told them not to worry, the truth is is, i carry a faulty gene. doctors told her she had an 87% risk of breast cancer and 50% risk of ovarian cancer. earlier this year, she began three months of surgeries and now faces a dramatically lower risk to just under 5%. she writes i can tell me children they don't need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer. it is reassuring they see
nothing that makes them uncomfortable. they can see my small scars and that's it. everything else is is just mommy and that's it. they know that i love them and will do anything to be with them. i don't feel less than a woman. it's an extremely brave admission and this type of tesing is amazingly expensive. but jolie hopes her op-ed will lead to more women with family history and the means to get tested. today, it is possible to find out through a blood test whether you are susceptible and take action. now, most women's experiences do not make it into the "new york times," but in her decision, she is not unique. experts estimate there has been as much as a 50% rise in the surgeries in recent years, meaning more and more women armed with genetic information are making the decision to undergo major surgery now to minimize the risk later.
when we come back, i'll speak with a journalist who found herself in the same situation and a congressman working to do something about this issue. she'l the one for you -
you know it even after all these years. but your erectile dysfunction - you know,that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions
such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.
we're talking about angelina jolie's revelation that she went a preventive double mastectomy. joining me now, caroline bass. and -- how the breast cancer gene changed everything. graet to have you here. i want to begin with you. having gone through this, what was your take away? your reaction to it? >> first of all, i just really
feel for anybody who has to make this decision, make the call to have a preventive double mastectomy, so my first reaction was sympathy. i also think that it's great. it's going to be great for women who are thinking about testing for this gene. this raises awareness about breast cancer and can help women to decide whether taking the gene test is right for them. of course, in consultation with a doctor and i also really liked what she said about not losing her femininity. i think that's a really important message. not just for women who have had a preventive mastectomy, but for many women, that there is life after. >> you found yourself in position, you found you had this. i should be clear, i was slightly -- on this gene. everyone has that, the it's a mutation, a fairly rare mutation. i just can't imagine -- what was your head in that decision?
it seems like the starkest kind of risk management for an individual to face. >> there's the decision to test and the decision about what to do about the results that you get. for me, i come from a family with a lot of cancer in it. my mother had cancer at 30. her mother had cancer in her 30s and again in her 40s and ovarian cancer in her 50s and both of her sisters died of cancer. one quite young an the other survived breast cancer to die horribly of ovarian cancer. >> it was just so stark looking around your family. >> every woman on my mother's side of the family had either had her breasts taken off voluntarily or because she's had cancer. when you have that kind of odds, it really does feel like cancer's coming for you and you have to be extra caution. >> i couldn't help but note $3,000 is just the cost for the
genetic testing that would, angelina jolie underwent and that lizzie underwent. this is not something a lot of people can afford and it's not necessarily covered by insurance. >> absolutely and let me just say to your guests, i really think she's very brave and i really appreciate her coming forward and talking about this. when i watched the news this morning, the first thing that came to my mind, i lost two maternal aunts to breast cancer and i was like, wow, maybe i could get that test. at 3,000, that's just the screen. then the you're talking about the mastectomy and most important for women is the reconstructive surgery that comes afterward and i am sure that really is a barrier in three areas. the dos of the screen, the surgery and then the reconstruction. so to me, as we hoo move move forward implementing health care reform, i want to look forward to the day that all women have access to this test, the surgery and the reconstruction.
>> it may be worth noting my test was not $303-000. they tested my mother first and only had to look for the part, they only had to look to see if my mutation was the same as hers. >> white women are five times more likely to undergo the counseling than african-americans. that massive despairty also reflected in the fact black women have a 41% higher rate. there's some real equity issues around this. this, to me, is the most striking aspect. there is a single company that owns this gene. and if that, it sounds like i'm misspeaking. there's a single company, even though they did not make this, mira genetics has patented the gene. they have claimed they can patent this gene.
a district court said that's crazy. an argument for the supreme court, we will find out soon, but this is really something that this technology is now in the hands of one company. >> yeah, that it's incredibly extraordinary. i'm looking forward to seeing what the supreme court decides. my understanding is what they've pat ends, they're arguing you can't patent things in nature, so they haven't patented a whole string of dna, swrus the specific cancer causing mutations. >> and that's a real question, whether they can do this. congresswoman, this is a case i think you've been following closely. >> it is and it's a case we're following in the judiciary committee to see what the outcome will be. you know, again, you would think that something that would save lives in such a manner really should be opened up an there should be access to everyone. you know, it's difficult when you're thinking about a disease
that you would hold on to a patent for x number of of years before you provide access to the general public. it's something we should address in the long-term. >> there's been a big question and you're researching this, how much are we going to see this increase over time? we've already seen a huge amount of increase. are we going to see an explosion in this and testing like this? >> i think so. we're learning more about genetic causes of disease every day is is my impression. there aren't just genes for breast cancer. there are genes that can raise your risk of alzheimer's or colon cancer or -- i think what we're seeing now with brca is going to become much more widespread. i think this is part of the future of medicine and it's complicated and uncertain and that's one of the really problematic things of genetic
testing. >> that you, yourself have experienced and had to act on. looking down the barrel of genetic probability is something i think a lot of us are going to be experiencing for ourselves. thank you both so much. that is all in for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts now. good evening, rachel. >> thank you very much and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. new york city is the largest city united states. we all think of it as a sprawling metropolis. it is easy to forget you are on an island in the north atlantic. manhattan is surrounded by water. staten island is surrounded by water. all the new york city boroughs have coastlines and it is possible to do some very good fishing, so north atlantic fishing in se brooklyn, new york. i know this because i caught